The southbound view at 26th and Powell. Police said preliminary information indicated that the man was biking south when a northbound truck turned left in front of him.(Image: Google Street View)

A collision involving a pickup truck and a bicycle critically injured a man biking southbound on 26th Avenue just before 10 a.m. Sunday morning.

Police said the injured man’s leg was severed after the northbound truck turned left onto Powell in front of him. Alistair Corkett, 22, was “transported to a Portland hospital with life-threatening injuries” but is expected to survive.

Kenji Sugahara, executive director of the Oregon Bicycle Racing Association, said in an email Sunday afternoon that Corkett was “a development rider for one of our teams in PDX.”

Brandon Bruins, a manager at the Clackamas Bike Gallery, said Corkett and a man who was riding with him were both employees there, and that Corkett had raced bicycles for years. Bruins said he’d been told Corkett was speaking to people after treatment.

Steve Remy, another friend of Corkett’s, said the man riding with Corkett was Anthony Disano.

According to the online map of traffic injuries since 2004 created for the Portland Bureau of Transportation’s Vision Zero campaign, this is the most dangerous intersection on Powell between SE 7th and SE Cesar Chavez, with 73 injuries from 2004 to 2013: 60 people in cars, eight people on bikes and five people on foot.

On Sunday May 10, 2015, at 9:52 a.m., Central Precinct officers responded to Southeast 26th Avenue and Powell Boulevard on the report that a man riding a bicycle had a leg severed after being struck by a man driving a pick-up truck.

Officers and medical personnel arrived and located the injured man in his 20s. The victim has been transported to a Portland hospital with life-threatening injuries. Several passersby stopped to provide medical aid until paramedics arrived at the scene.

The driver of the truck remained at the scene and has been detained by police for further investigation.

Preliminary information indicates that the truck driver was northbound on 26th Avenue and the bicycle rider and a friend were riding southbound on 26th Avenue. The truck driver turned left in front of the bicycle riders, colliding with the victim.

The Traffic Division’s Major Crash Team has responded to the scene to investigate the crash.

The department added in a later update:

The driver of the pick-up, 42-year-old Barry Scott Allen, was detained and released as the investigation continues. Drugs and/or alcohol do not appear to be a factor at this time.

Once the investigation is complete, the case will be given to the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office for review.

Advertisement

This is one of the most important bike crossings of Powell, with bike lanes and bike boxes in both directions. It’s the main corner in front of Cleveland High School.

The 20s Bikeway project, which is nearing completion, is currently considering creating an alternative neighborhood greenway route on 28th Avenue, a lower-traffic street two blocks east. That would require a new signalized crossing. As of April 30 the Oregon Department of Transportation, which controls Powell Boulevard, had not yet decided whether to approve that new city-requested signal because it is so close to the existing one at 26th.

Beneath this post, several readers have had things to say about this intersection and the surrounding area. From Ezm:

Another Car v Bike happened in this intersection 2-3 weeks ago. Driver hit a high school kid, similar circumstances, although I don’t think the injury was nearly as bad.

I live a block away, cross here on feet or bike several times a day. The intersection is very straight forward, few if any vision obstructions. Yet daily I see drivers not following signage, not respecting the bike box, and just generally not yielding or driving with caution.

Car traffic has a tendency to get jammed here during the rush, especially as parents drop kids at school. A lot of what I see is frustrated drivers, on powell and 26th alike, pushing the light and driving super aggressive.

I have to bike through this intersection on my bike several times a day and I feel like I’m gambling with my life every time. 1) The N/S light is way too short (and the E/W too long), so everyone speeds through. 2) No one enforces the green boxes, so a lot of the cars turn right on red 3) There are no alternatives for crossing Powell within 6 blocks 4) Traffic on 26th has gotten progressively worse over the years with no change in traffic patterns to accommodate it (a left turn signal would be pretty useful).

The section directly in front of Cleveland HS is especially dangerous with the bike lane frequently blocked by buses in the bus stop, parents dropping off/picking up their kids at school (because the kids can’t seem to walk half a block, I guess), and, during rainy season, a poorly drained lake at the corner. All factors that force cyclists into the car lane.

Nicholas Caleb, a candidate running for city council against incumbent Transportation Commissioner Steve Novick, shared the news on his campaign Facebook page:

As soon as I arrived home from a wonderful, leisurely day at Sunday Parkways, I saw this terrible news.

The reality of cycling in Portland is that it is extremely dangerous. The infrastructure that should be in place to protect cyclists has not been installed & each passing day without it means life threatening danger for cyclists who venture out into the streets. Fragile human bodies stand no chance when they come in contact with metal machines weighing in at thousands of pounds and moving fast. Helmets and reflective clothing won’t change this reality. We need real safety infrastructure & traffic laws to be strictly enforced in order to protect human lives.

I will fight for a society much closer to what we experience at Sunday Parkways.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

Tragic, sad, idiotic, preventable. Life will never be the same for that unfortunate cyclist. Because a driver just didn’t pay attention.

I just got back from a morning ride up to Council Crest. On the way down, on SW Vista Ave, some lady in a white Subaru pretty much tailgated me all the way back (I could hear her revving the engine behind me), even though I was doing 25-30 mph. Then she proceeded to cut me off at the intersection with SW Park Pl. WTF?!? I guess she was late for a squash game at the MAC or something. My first run in with aggressive drivers in three months; hope it’s the last.

Why is it always “I didn’t see you” or “You came out of nowhere”? Is it *that* hard for drivers to pay attention while driving a massive high speed vehicle? I drive on rare occasion when necessary (to get out of town, haul larger objects, etc…) and I’m hyper-vigilant the entire time. Yet even as a driver it’s getting scarier each day – increasing numbers of other drivers are not paying attention and flat-out driving like a$$.

I wonder… how many more of these serious injuries involving bicyclists, drivers, and pedestrians will it take for the city to give a damn about safety?

As you know the reasons are simple: 1) the “law of the jungle” mentality of some drivers, is to only look out for things that are a bigger threat to them; and sadly 2) the current judicial and enforcement “system” makes it very easy to use this as a “legitimate excuse” to reducing responsibility for the outcome of one’s driving behavior and shift the incident from an avoidable collision to an accident.

“what exactly could ‘the city’ do to stop someone from taking a left turn in front of a cyclist illegally?” One place to start would be to mete out real consequences to those who hurt others with their automobiles, rather than doling out slaps on the wrist. As El Biciclero has pointed out here repeatedly, we live in a culture that tends to look the other way in situations where someone in a car maims another person who happens to be in their path. This needs to change, both in the specific instances and more generally through a change in tone. Vision Zero is one strategy through which to pursue this. But to work there has to be a commitment to make it happen, not just words.

Make the punishments heavy enough to put a climate of fear over motoring. Damaging another human being in a car should be a life-altering (for the worse) experience. We are too socially permissive of negligent, casual driving.

Based on experiences on 2nd Ave in Seattle where this is the case- Left turns across the bikeway only allowed when there is a left turn arrow – Drivers regularly ignore the red arrows and there is no police enforcement. In a perfect world this would be a decent solution. In reality I’ve had people roll their windows down and complain to me that they’re “confused” about no left on a red signal.

how so? There are no bike lanes in modern roundabouts, and in an ideal design the operational speed is 20 mph or less. The best modern roundabout design for cyclists provides two choices. The more confident cyclist should merge with through traffic and circulate like a motorist. This is made easier by the low-speed operational environment of the modern roundabout, which should not exceed 20 mph (30 kph). The less confident cyclist should be provided a ramp to exit the street and use a shared use path around the roundabout. Such paths should be at least ten feet wide (3 m) and cyclist operate at low speeds, crossing at the pedestrian crossings. http://tinyurl.com/roundabouts-and-bikes Sometimes space constraints, as with other intersection types, limit ideal design.

Just a few months ago three kids were killed while legally using a crosswalk. The driver was temporarily distracted, but the incident was classified as an accident and the driver wasn’t charged. THIS is what needs to stop. From the DA’s press release: “Oregon courts have held that “mere inadvertence, brief inattention, or errors in judgment” are not sufficient to charge a person with criminal homicide.” This needs to be changed. If you’re not paying attention, you’re not fulfilling your duties and responsibilities as a motor vehicle operator. I don’t think we’ll see any real change until drivers start losing licenses and going to prison.

“we live in a culture that tends to look the other way in situations where someone in a car maims another person who happens to be in their path. ”

You know… like this:Legal killing: A Springfield man won’t face criminal homicide charges for “unwittingly” running a red light and crashing his pickup into three young children in a crosswalk, killing them.

Better regulation and education for driver’s licenses would be a good start. Yearly book testing to renew a license with a driving skills test once every five years would help ensure that those with licenses actually know the laws and have the skills to safely handle a vehicle on the street. Having the licensee pay the full cost of all the testing means the city doesn’t lose out. Actual punishment for driving without a license or with an expired or suspended license, or without insurance might help deter people from getting in their cars anyway.

Mistakes and accidents are bound to happen; I realize we’re all human. But if most people were to start with a mentality that getting in their vehicle and pulling it into the public right of way represents a potential danger to other people, maybe we could get somewhere in helping to reduce the number of collisions on the road.

The factors that play into causing the majority of accidents – distraction, excessive speed, impatience, etc. – are not a mystery. The real problem is the mentality that “it won’t happen to me because I’m a good driver.” The city has plenty of tools in its toolbox to start working on the problem. It lacks completely the wherewithall put them to use.

We need to treat cars/trucks like helicopters. No, we probably can’t legislate away stupidity, rage, and poor judgment, but we could conceivably reduce the destructive potential of those choosing to exercise their right to any of the above by making it much, much harder to earn the driving privilege and much, much easier to lose it. And not just the privilege, but access to vehicles as well. I’ve said it before:

Do something egregious enough to get your license suspended (for traffic reasons; I can’t figure out why failure to pay child support, e.g., is attached to driving privileges)? Leave you car in the garage and take the bus, walk, bum rides, ride a bike, etc. until your suspension is up.

Get caught driving while suspended? Impound the car and revoke the license. You could redeem your car from impound if you wanted to, say, sell it; otherwise, after so long in impound it would go to auction or crusher.

Get caught driving while revoked? As soon as it can be ascertained that the car you were in was not stolen, said car goes directly to auction or crusher.

If you think revocation of your license poses such a hardship that you will be unable to provide for yourself or your family, then make very careful decisions about how you will drive, and think how much harder it would be from jail.

Other prohibitions on buying or renting cars by revoked, would-be drivers would need to be put in place as well, but I’m sure our brilliant lawmakers could come up with something.

So, I drive a big 40 foot long yellow school bus. I will be out there M-F about 4pm heading south. The drivers out there are predatory and feel entitlement because they are impatient and tend to forget that we all must share the road. I am very well aware of how dangerous all intersections are and this one in particular. I live in the neighborhood as well.

@Kyle In the military our level of responsibility was to confirm the result of an action, not to perform an action. Excuses become useless and pathetic.

For example, “I did not see you” automatically becomes an admission of guilt for negligence. This is the real problem with civilian motor vehicle operating regulations, because there is no real punishment for infractions that produce death or injury that would have been criminal if produced any other way. Excuses and pathetic gestures like staying at the scene – as if they had any other choice – somehow buy them good will.

This young man who lost a limb because a man whose access to machinery should have been revoked for life was allowed to continue endangering the public. Unfortunately, the vast majority of American motor vehicle operators I encounter have no idea what they are doing and don’t understand the law, because they don’t really have to. One simply has to take a short multiple choice questionnaire and pass marginally, and never have to do it again in their lifetime.

Poe’s law, named after its author Nathan Poe,[1] is a literary adage which stipulates that, without a clear indicator of an author’s intention, it is often impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of such extremism.[2] Someone will likely mistake the parody for a genuine article, or vice-versa.[3]

I was hit in exactly the same way: going south on SE 7th, crossing Morrison, and the driver never came to a full stop. I got lucky: I just clipped, so when I flew 20 feet thru the air, I only broke a few ribs, punctured my ribs, and had some internal organs bruised. Landed on my head & back together, so the helmet saved my life. I think it’s always worth the conversation to support helmets. Just like we do seat belts.

That said, I got off lucky when I was hit. I hope this guy recovers & is back riding before too long.

While questions of whether the person riding was or wasn’t wearing a helmet or visibility gear, don’t yet seem to have been posted to bikeportland, I’ve little doubt that many people reading and hearing about this collision, have been asking exactly those questions.

Bike helmets, visibility gear, and skill and knowledge related to riding in traffic amongst motor vehicles, all are basic safety measures that can help people riding bikes, avoid collisions.

It’s impossible to know, especially at this early point after this particular collision, whether or not helmets or visibility gear, or lack of them, whichever is the case, had any bearing on this collision having occurred.

In many common traffic situations, it seems that split seconds of awareness can mean the difference between close calls and collisions occurring, or not occurring.

Seriously? He was hit in broad daylight, and (as noted above) a helmet wouldn’t do anything to save his leg. He might’ve been more visible and protected wearing a safety orange colored padded space suit; should we pass a law to make that mandatory? I’ve read enough of our comments to know they can be a little off the deep end, but this takes the cake.

Exactly, I have a 5 point harness in my car, thinking about upgrading to 6 point for comfort, and I think every car should have one. They are a heck of a lot lighter than an airbag and the added structure needed to support an airbag in a wreck. About 2 pounds of belts and 10 pounds of structure compared to the 7 pounds and 50 pounds of structure needed for an airbag. Think about how much extra gas is needed to tote all that extra weight around, multiplied by all the airbags in a car.

“Seriously? He was hit in broad daylight, and (as noted above) a helmet wouldn’t do anything to save his leg. He might’ve been more visible and protected wearing a safety orange colored padded space suit; should we pass a law to make that mandatory? I’ve read enough of our comments to know they can be a little off the deep end, but this takes the cake.” resopmok

Yes, I’m serious. What is it you think I’m saying, that I did not write in the comment you’re responding to?

I did write, rather straight out, that it’s impossible to know whether use of safety gear could have been a factor that would have helped prevent this particular collision from happening.

Visibility of road users, definitely is a factor of consideration in understanding the occurrence of collisions. Investigators of this collision will be having to try answer the question of how visible were the persons riding, to other road users.

Actually, aside from helmets, you did not specify straight out what visibility or safety gear might have been present to help prevent this accident. Given that the accident occurred in broad daylight, the only conceivable thing not mentioned in the article that might have impeded the truck driver’s view of cyclists entering the intersection would have been another vehicle in front of them, and given the height of the truck’s cab over most other traffic, that too seems unlikely.

From what you wrote, it seems like you’re blaming the victim in this accident which, even from the preliminary evidence, is a pretty ridiculous assertion given the circumstances. Thus arose my question about whether you’re actually being serious, or just being controversial for the sake of doing so.

“…you did not specify straight out what visibility or safety gear might have been present to help prevent this accident. …” resopmok

Some people riding bikes, run their lights during the day: headlights and tail lights, as people riding motorcycles, are required to by law. On busy city streets, using daytime running lights may make particular sense, though I see some guys on the low traffic Fairmount Blvd loop that run them during the day.

Front and rear views of someone on a bike, are the smaller area of visibility, relative to side views. That area of visibility is obviously smaller than than provided by the front and rear of cars and trucks. Even front and rear views of people on motor vehicles, are almost always larger than that of people riding bikes.

Being vulnerable road users in a mixed vehicle traffic environment that includes the use of motor vehicles, people riding bikes are well advised to take advantage of all the safety enhancing help they can get.

In the aftermath of collisions involving people riding bikes and people driving, questioning whether reasonable measures were taken by people biking, that may have helped aid their visibility to other road users, and possibly have helped reduce the chances of the collision happening…is not ‘blaming the victim’.

Conscientious people should be able to consider all possible contributing elements relating to why a collision may have occurred, without jumping to conclusions before facts are in, that the person or persons injured in the collision, are at fault for the collision having happened.

“Bike helmets, visibility gear, and skill and knowledge related to riding in traffic amongst motor vehicles, all are basic safety measures that can help people riding bikes, avoid collisions.”

Wait a minute. Have you (again) forgotten that the aggressor, the source of the carnage, the weapon if you will was in this case the machine turning left? It’s all to the good to remember that we-who-ride can be extra vigilant, perspicacious, always expecting people driving to make stupid moves, your insistence on (only) this rankles. If it had been a bike+rider turning left instead of a pickup truck, there would have been no limb severing. It is as simple as that.

Let’s also not forget that there were two riders, riding together; that arguably already upped their visibility by being in a group of two – more surface area, more objects in motion, etc. This has got to be either driver inattention or aggression. There was mention of a yellow light. Either the bike riders or the truck driver may or may have not been gunning to make the yellow, but in any case, the bikes, going straight, still had ROW. Did the truck even have a blinker on? That’s the question I want answered more than did a rider have a helmet or a day-glo vest.

The interesting thing about the yellow is that it was the same for both N/W- and S-bound parties. But the straight-has-right-of-way-over-turning seems to trump this, though in our highly imperfect world I won’t be surprised to learn that the police muddle the fault-finding/citation thing because *both* parties were traveling against a yellow light.

When entering an intersection, Oregon uses an interpretation of the yellow that requires you to stop if you can. ORS 811.260 states in part “If a driver cannot stop in safety, the driver may drive cautiously through the intersection.”

On several occasions I have had the experience of being in the intersection waiting for a gap in on-coming traffic so I could make a left turn, seeing the light turn yellow and having the on-coming motorist gun it to make it into the intersection “on the yellow.” I think it is far more likely that on Sunday morning at 26th/Powell that the motorist simply failed to yield the right of way, but the requirement to yield could possibly apply to the on-coming traffic depending on the signal.

I’m beginning to think at a GoPro camera should be on my helmet and in my car.

That’s an mportant question to answer; and if the blinker was on, from what distance relative to the intersection, and also, in this particular situation, how visible was the blinker to other road users?

Another important question to answer: could the driver make do with a smaller, lighter vehicle? Trucks are dangerous and expensive to drive, I wonder if the driver was using the truck recreationally or for a legitimate purpose.

I don’t know if the model or what size it is has been specified, but I think another story has reported that vehicle drive, was a pickup truck. Pickups aren’t all big vehicles. Even a standard size pickup isn’t so big, if it hasn’t lifted and fitted with big rims and tires.

There are some pickups on the road with all that stuff, which truly make them like monsters. Even they though, can and are driven safely by good drivers. No road where motor vehicles are in use, is ever going to be a particularly safe place for someone to ride a bike.

I figure bikeportland’s staff’s intentions are good, when they like to say that ‘biking is safe’, but the reality is, biking amongst motor vehicles is very risky. Intersections are particularly dangerous. When I ride, I worry a lot about the left hook. Particularly at intersections where the light cycles are long. People get frustrated, waiting for the light to change, and their concentration lapses. Or, the light is green, and they try to get through the intersection before it changes to yellow or red, because they don’t want to have to wait three minutes through a red light cycle.

Biking defensively is about the best thing a person riding can do. And even then, the potential for something to go wrong, is a constant.

Nothing reported so far, has indicated that the person driving was an aggressor; in other words: that the person driving, attacked the person on the bike. What’s been reported, is that for whatever reasons, possibly yet to be learned fully, the person driving, turned at a right angle relative to the direction the person riding was traveling, in a situation that contributed to the occurrence of a collision.

This was a collision between someone driving a motor vehicle, and someone riding a bike. These kinds of collisions are never good. The person riding the bike stands a far greater chance of losing their life, whether or not they’re the one turning.

“…the person driving, turned at a right angle relative to the direction the person riding was traveling, in a situation that contributed to the occurrence of a collision.”

O.K., if you prefer the obtuse to the straightforward….

My point was that the person riding a bike did nothing to endanger anyone else, and had the person in the pickup truck not been in a truck but on a bike as well, the chances of a crash occurring, never mind the severity of one, would have been much, much, much lower. I have never heard of someone on a bike severing anyone’s leg in the course of a collision. It seems pretty much inconceivable.

“The mere fact of his driving a pickup truck, does not by itself make him an aggressor.”

O.K. What do you call it when the difference between an impatient person making a left turn across the path of another road user on a bike and in a pickup can result in this kind of carnage? I appreciate you objecting to the word aggressor and welcome suggestions for a better word, but the fact remains that as flawed humans when you put us in cars bad things that wouldn’t happen outside of cars sometimes happen. Cars are a bad fit; they exaggerate the mistakes, the lapses of attention, the proclivity toward aggression, the carelessness that we exhibit as humans

From slim bits of info about the collision I’ve read about here on bikeportland stories and over at the Oregonian, I’d venture to say that ‘careless’, as used in Oregon statutes for careless driving, may characterize this driver. Results of a full investigation of the collision, people involved, and witnesses, that I hope is being conducted, may discover more about the driver, and how he was driving before the actual collision.

Another Car v Bike happened in this intersection 2-3 weeks ago. Driver hit a high school kid, similar circumstances, although I don’t think the injury was nearly as bad.

I live a block away, cross here on feet or bike several times a day. The intersection is very straight forward, few if any vision obstructions. Yet daily I see drivers not following signage, not respecting the bike box, and just generally not yielding or driving with caution.

Car traffic has a tendency to get jammed here during the rush, especially as parents drop kids at school. A lot of what I see is frustrated drivers, on powell and 26th alike, pushing the light and driving super agreasive.

Ugh:( this is down the street from me. The road is closed off and now the rerouted traffic is racing down our street at insane speeds. I have seen this same accident happen at that intersection with two cars. Portland needs to do something about that intersection! It’s dangerous for everyone. Powell is crazy people drive like they are on the freeway. I am so sad for the cyclists involved. Horrible.

A left hook (car turns left, hits rider traveling straight in opposite direction) is a real danger, not just to cyclists but to motorcyclists and other drivers too. Hard for the going-straight person to guard against, because the closing speed is high(er) and there is usually little or no warning of the turning person’s maneuver.

Agreed, but in the meantime I recommend everyone get umbrella insurance to increase your own coverage. You can get it set up so that if you are hit by an uninsured person your coverage will pay out to you, and 1.5 million costs less than you’d think a year.

The base 15k in PIP isn’t going to last long with a serious injury, and can only be used within the first year. As someone who was seriously injured by a driver I have ended up with lots of medical payments due to cronic injuries caused by the car that hit me which I have no way to recover. We need higher minimums and to do more to keep uninsured drivers off the road. In the meantime, the only thing you can really do is increase your own insurance coverage… I definately recommend that anyone hurt by a driver makes sure to try to get money to pay for future medical expenses too, because although you might feel better for awhile a serious injury is going to lead to complications down the road.

I personally know three people who were involved in crashes caused by motorists without insurance. Two involved injuries.

Rather than having to provide proof of insurance every two years with vehicle registration renewal, I think it should be required every time you put gas in your vehicle. I envision a tag like the Fred Meyer rewards card you can get your 3 cent per gallon discount.

I wasn’t thinking of a sticker, but rather a tag with a bar code that tied to an auto insurance website or a state data base. Or maybe you’d have an app on your phone proving insurance.

You or the attendant would have to scan it at the pump before the pump would dispense gas. So as to avoid someone being stranded due to some “glitch,” maybe the pump would allow a maximum of two gallons to be sold without getting a positive confirmation from the card reader at the pump.

… because government monitoring of how much and where one drives wouldn’t cause any concerns about privacy or anything. And of course the large oil corporations that collect this information wouldn’t try to use it for their own purposes or advertising, and there’d be no risk of that information leaking from poor IT/security practices or anything. I’m sure I’m the only one to think of a trivial bypass of such measures by claiming the gas is for a lawn mower, boat, camp stove, tractor, etc.

When one’s insurance lapses, it is already reported to the state by the company that provided the lapsed policy. This already triggers a driver’s license suspension unless the driver provides proof of coverage under a new policy. Penalties for driving on a suspended license are already pretty steep. How much do you want to prioritize police traffic enforcement to catch those people vs. other police efforts like bike theft, criminal investigations, and so forth?

My source in this case is my own experience. When I switched insurance companies, the paperwork on the new company got screwed up and I received a suspension notice in the mail. When I called my insurance company to “wtf?!” at them, they realized the mistake and explained that this is how it works. I had to go in to DMV and sign a sworn affidavit plus present the new insurance card to get them to rescind the suspension. DMV told me that the sworn affidavit is really just icing on the cake; they actually verify my policy number and expiration date with the insurance company through some sort of e-clearance system. That verification isn’t done as a matter of routine, only as a requirement to clear a pending suspension. (And no, I’m not required to file SR22 or anything like that, so there’s no reason why anyone else would be different.)

Well it doesn’t typically happen. I have more than one car, and sometimes I drop insurance off my truck that I won’t be driving in the winter. They never notify the state as far as I know, and I’ve never had my license suspended.

I have to bike through this intersection on my bike several times a day and I feel like I’m gambling with my life every time. 1) The N/S light is way too short (and the E/W too long), so everyone speeds through. 2) No one enforces the green boxes, so a lot of the cars turn right on red 3) There are no alternatives for crossing Powell within 6 blocks 4) Traffic on 26th has gotten progressively worse over the years with no change in traffic patterns to accommodate it (a left turn signal would be pretty useful).

The section directly in front of Cleveland HS is especially dangerous with the bike lane frequently blocked by buses in the bus stop, parents dropping off/picking up their kids at school (because the kids can’t seem to walk half a block, I guess), and, during rainy season, a poorly drained lake at the corner. All factors that force cyclists into the car lane.

“When applicable, this subsection exempts vehicles stopped, standing or parked momentarily to pick up or discharge a passenger.” (ORS 811.560)

The same law exempts school buses and trucks, both of which stop in front of Cleveland High. The real question is why is it acceptable for *any* vehicle to stop and load/unload on 26th rather than one of the other adjacent streets? The traffic load on 26th is too high for that to be safe and drop-offs should really be on either 28th or Franklin. That’s not going to happen, though, because really the main issue is that the streets around Cleveland High are totally unacceptable for car/bus pick up and drop off from an engineering standpoint.

Unfortunately, it’s a challenging situation – the area grew up organically, so the structural issues involved are not easily addressed.

although technically a generally legal move, it’s illegal here on 26th because it also impedes traffic since you can’t get out of the narrow travel lane far enough to allow vehicles to pass you within their lane…

Is the 20’s bikeway reroute in this article related to the bike lane expansion that people in Eastmoreland are rallying against because they don’t want to lose on-street parking?

I hope this tragedy helps put things in perspective for people. Creating safe routes for people to travel, and saving lives and limbs, is much more important than preserving on-street parking. Let’s get the 20’s bikeway done right!

I hope that the struck cyclist has the best possible recovery, given the circumstances. It’s such a tragedy.

As to Eastmoreland bike lane protest, nobody in Eastmorleand cares except the three mansions across from Reed on Moreland Ave. They want additional parking on Woodstock in addition to there private driveways and Moreland Ave.

If you believe that a left turning vehicle has the right-of-way in an intersection, I would ask that you familiarize yourself with the Orgegon law regarding left turnshttp://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.350 or please, please, please stop driving.

Several things, I’ve lived in the immediate neighborhood 26 years, this has always been a problematic intersection. The state would never allow a left turn signal because it would slow traffic on Powell too much!!!! I used to drive this to work every morning, car or scooter,and at rush traffic backs up and you can wait several cycles to make a left turn from 28th. I’m not justifying people’s impatience, but I’m sure every driver has somewhere they need to be. Our work a day world gets faster and faster. When the bike boxes went in, it slowed the intersection more! My son got hit here a few years ago by a parent dropping off their precious teenager at school! I quit using 28th and take alternative routes unless I’m walking. Usually the intersection works better on the weekends without the rush/business traffic. Solutions: State put in left turn signals!!! And, the rest of us, drivers, riders and walkers…cross respectively and responsibly…as if your life depended on it. Don’t expect others to watch out for you. One last thing…there will never be enough traffic officers to monitor every problematic intersection in a City with over 10,000 miles of streets. We each have to slow down, pay attention and follow the rules!!!

I just wanted to add here that I have been riding that area since Highschool in the early 80’s. This intersection has always been dangerous, trying to go straight through there on a bike is very dangerous. Turning in a car off of 26th onto Powell Blvd take several cycles of the light so N/S drivers blow right through not allowing other road users the ability to turn E/W onto Powell Blvd. Lights are jumped at above speed limit pace every cycle of the lights. I have always avoided this intersection even in a car if I plan to turn onto Powell Blvd from 26th. I always drop down below the park and take the bike friendly 21st Ave across Powell where there is a light and crosswalk! Cyclist take 21St ave it’s a safe and easy route across Powell and connects to Lad’s Edition. Use Gladstone or Clinton to get down to 21st Ave.

I’m familiar with the signal at 21st and Powell. That’s the route I choose when heading to downtown. But expecting kids living in Reedway, Eastmoreland, and Kenilworth to go as far west as 21st only to return east to Cleveland at 26th/Powell is a bit much.

I’m always much more scared crossing Powell at 21st than at 26th… on 21st there’s usually a couple cars turning left in each direction waiting for each other to turn… if you try to go around them you risk getting left-hooked by the oncoming vehicle… or somebody a couple cars back will decide to suddenly illegally pass on the right because the person behind the turning car isn’t…

no, I’ll take my chances at 26th where everybody has their own clearly defined lanes…

Quick note: at the request of a witness who says he picked the man’s leg off the street this morning and applied the first tourniquet, I’ve unpublished several comments he made on this thread.

He expressed horror and also said the truck “was in the process of turning when the bicyclist entered the intersection” on a yellow light.

I unpublished because he asked me to after several other people responded harshly to the implication that the person on the bike might be at fault. I’ve summarized the content of his comments because they’re newsworthy, but deferred to his request to unpublish them because he has obviously had a very difficult day and doesn’t need to be in the middle of this right now.

Everyone: please act with compassion toward one another in this awful situation and refrain from passing judgment on the situation (even if you were present) until more of the facts are established.

Thanks, SD. And yes, we wouldn’t have unpublished them if the original poster hadn’t asked us to on an already very bad day for him. Hopefully the summary I posted covers both sides of the matter adequately.

And just for the record: even if a person is entering an intersection on a yellow, someone going straight has the right of way over someone turning.

Witnesses with credible accounts of circumstances of the collision will be important to investigators’ efforts to understand how the collision happened, and why. It was a responsible move for bikeportland to unpublish the witnesses’ comments at his request. At this point, bikeportland readers knowing there were witnesses, is good.

For people thinking about how responsibility for collisions should be assigned, and that have questions about how well prepared laws and the judicial system are, to do that, there was an opinion piece in today’s Oregonian, on that subject:

…the opinion piece is in response to a tragic collision involving someone driving, and people crossing the street; and the conclusion the district attorney had to come to in deciding whether or not charges could be brought against the person driving.

Neither law enforcement or the justice system can charge people for acts the law doesn’t provide for. Anyone with ideas for altering current laws in ways they feel would more justly and effectively reduce collisions, is welcome to put their ideas into some readable form, and propose them for other people’s consideration. Why not give it a try?

SE 26th at Powell and south of that intersection has become a nightmare with the recent increases in big truck traffic from the Brooklyn yard and speeders. I’ve been nagging the city about enforcement but haven’t gotten anywhere with them yet. I don’t even know if they can since there are missing speed limit signs they haven’t gotten around to replacing.

I want out officials in City hall and the Police department as well ODOT to start to be accountable for the people who face the dangers of Powell. This should not be confused with taking the blame, but instead what are we finally gonna do about and who is gonna champion it for us.

TV news just dug up the driver’s record. Surprise, surprise: a history of violations and endangering the public. Go figure, it seems being a screwup once, correlates strongly with being a screwup again. Should’ve lost his license a while ago.

Can the DMV, city, or state of Oregon be sued, if they are in fact allowing drivers to continue owning 6000+ pound vehicles after they’ve violated safe driving laws? After reading about crosswalk stings on this site, we know it is the case that cars are becoming allowed weapons in the hands of certain unlawful drivers. Let’s get cars out of the hands of irresponsible drivers.

” It’s a rider’s responsibility to watch everything all the time and be ready for anything.”

Is that not also true of automobile drivers? And yet, here we are, that responsibility having lapsed on the part of one or both parties involved. A bicycle has good maneuverability, but that doesn’t make it possible to avoid any/everything. Pedestrians are even more capable of rapid direction change, but that doesn’t make them immune from collisions, even if they are paying attention and being defensive.

Screw putting them in the hands of the government; they’ll just sit on the footage. Get permission from private property owners to put Wi-Fi solar powered webcams on their site aimed at the intersection. EVERY intersection.

Find some local techy to set up a cloud DVR for footage archiving but all video streams of public streets and intersections would be open, live and free for anyone to view. Hopefully a couple days worth could be retained for all cameras while footage important to an incident could be offloaded to a legal firm.

Who knows: live cameras at every intersection or known hazard could make everyone behave, including abusive authority figures.

If putting up cameras, its critical to provided indication, and the right kind of indication, that the intersection is being watched. Studies have shown people behave significantly better in general when they believe they are being watched. What seems work especially well are eyeballs, or so called watchful eyes. An interesting project might be to take baseline footage at an intersection, then paint eyeballs on the road, maybe placemaking style, or using art crosswalks, then compare the new footage to baseline.

Never said they should be invisible or hidden. I’d want the fact that the cameras provide live and useful footage to be something that angry drivers can verify on YouTube at their leisure; hopefully not while driving.

<exasperated incredulity> Where at ANY point did I suggest that private property owners should be issuing citations?!?!? Or even MENTION citations? </exasperated incredulity> POLICE speed cameras can’t issue citations in Oregon; only the physical officer physically on site is authorized to physically issue a citation. I see this as a big problem.

Red light cameras, with which I have no problem being everywhere, only work well within the very regimented domain of a signalized 4-way intersection. They only collect video for the miniscule physical area and equally miniscule time slice where a red light violation takes place. Then the footage is either owned by the red light camera company or the police neither of which has any motivation to release it for anything less than a court order.

If the recent police abuse prosecutions in other big American cites shows anything it’s that the only witness statement that will stand up in court in a life-and-death situation is the witness statement of a video camera.

Red light camera systems will only ever cover signalized intersections. There are SO many other places people are getting injured and killed on American roads with no one to speak for them. There isn’t enough money nor popular support for all the police enforcement that would be needed to force people to drive safely.

So I propose an entirely decentralized system of cameras that: () explicitly shares all video to the public for free () only records public travel ways; roads AND sidewalks. (1) (2) () streaming as live as possible to a web service as easy as possible to use so retired people could keep an eye on parts of their neighborhood that are important to them. () retains a minimum of 48 hours of footage from all cameras () any video requested after the fact bumps all specified and adjacent camera footage to 5 business days retention status () any video requested by legal firms, courts or police would be flagged for permanent retention but not hidden from the public in any way. Just because a lawyer wants to use camera footage in court does not make it secret. () hopefully has multiple overlapping views. A 4-way intersection should reasonably have at least 4 cameras aiming from a corner towards the corner diagonally opposite. () is as cost free for the property owner as possible. Solar power with batteries and Wi-Fi data link means the worst negotiation point is where to put it.

There is no reason not to drag our police departments, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century with current technologies that would allow for much more efficient use of manpower. We can’t delude ourselves into believing that a public entity such as ODOT or PPD will be concerned with anything other than greasing the squeakiest wheel. We are on our own as always but having irrefutable video evidence will bring some equity to the historic imbalance of power in the automobile’s war on all life.

(1) Some of the most disturbing crash video I’ve seen is from external CCTV of a street level store front as a high speed vehicle mows down people who thought they were safe on the sidewalk… Then the driver tries to leave because the only obvious witnesses are dead or unconscious. (2) with physical obstructions in/on the camera blocking view of private property.

When do we lower speed limits on all streets not designated as a freeway? My suspicion, besides the obvious fact that reducing speed limits to 25 MPH saves Lives by 40%, but people in general might be less harried, relax a little as they drive if 25 MPH was the max.

It would be interesting to find out why so many people leave kids (older kids too boot?) off at a local high school. I road my bike from 3rd grade through 12th or walked the mere mile or 2.

However….

Part of the problem might be a boundary issue.

I discovered our child would go to Cleveland, and we live clear up at SE 52nd near SE Woodstock. Don’t get me wrong, I would encourage riding & it is only about 2.5 miles.. but that seems far for a local school, especially considering Franklin is barely a 1/4 mile from us.

Redraw some boundaries, arrange classrooms and instruction according to nearby population needs at each school? More outreach encouraging actively arriving at school via foot and bike?

Perhaps Portland could be bold enough to lower speed limits and save Lives. I recall streets adjacent to school and near neighborhoods and services in many parts of Europe, all with limits 20 mph or less.

When are we going to crack down on poor driving records, male people much more accountable? There is no excuse for allowing someone who has more than once been accountable for endangering anyone on the road the right to a driver’s license.

I sincerely feel it is not a right but privilege to be able to drive, heard that throughout my life, but the actions legally say something completely different.

What you’re calling for has (recently) started to be called Vision Zero. Our city officials have been talking it up here lately. But ODOT couldn’t care less. And this being an ODOT ‘facility,’ we may have to wait a looooong time. But PBOT could put pressure on their counterparts at ODOT, encourage the old guard to retire, etc.

Portland, no city in Oregon, can set it’s own speed limits other than in school and business zones (defined by the State).

Even the OAR 734.020.00515 that permits Portland to use an alternate investigation method, still leaves control with the State. Not necessarily a bad thing for Portland. Liability can be a pit to get stuck in and very costly. The current system somewhat shields cities, big and small. PBOT and ODOT have begun discussing how to move forward on OAR 734.020.0015 (3).

News comes in from the eye witness that the truck was in the process of turning when the bike entered the intersection on a yellow light. Could it be the biker endangered himself with the kind of recklessness I see in biker daily in Portland?

The determination of who has right of way at an intersection with traffic signals isn’t governed the same as with stop signs. Just because the truck got there first doesn’t mean they have right of way over oncoming traffic. And that the light was yellow also makes no difference, the turning vehicle is required to wait until the intersection is clear. Perhaps things work differently in New York, but last I checked, this is the case across all 50 states.

This intersection is a big problem. PBOT really needs to put the screws on ODOT to get a dedicated light at 28th. Too many high school kids playing Frogger just to cross the street. Not to mention a Somali population that lives just south of Powell.

Exactly three weeks ago, my wife and I were riding our tandem at 160th & Halsey when we were hit by a woman who was just sure that she could beat us across Barr Rd (she couldn’t). She hit us at about a 45 degree angle still driving at the 40 mph speed limit. Fortunately, we are both still alive and have all our limbs. But, it was close – very close. My left elbow had to be completely rebuilt, and the chance of ever having full use of my left arm again are slim. Oh, did I mention, I’m left-handed?

I started riding avidly in the Portland area in 1980. In the past 35 years the cycling scene has changed dramatically, and for the better. I am one of the few who can remember when the SE 26th Ave bike lanes were added. You think it’s a dangerous street now – think about how bad it was then. But we still have a long way to go. Greater insurance liability limits are not the answer. That only helps after someone is hurt. We need to continue to be more visible and require bicycle awareness education in order to get a driver license. The greater the expectation that drivers will encounter a cyclist on any street and at any intersection, the safer we will be.

The really upsetting part of this story is the driver hasn’t been cited. Why not? That he made an illegal left turn is glaringly obvious. If drivers know that they will be held accountable for their actions that hurt other people, they will be more careful. If they think they can get away with it, we create a war zone mentality.

Thanks for pointing out the not-yet-cited part of the story. As you say, this sends a very powerful if perhaps also subliminal signal to anyone in a car that they may get off – even if this guy does, eventually, get cited, and he probably will.

Someone always wants to know why the driver wasn’t cited. The answer is always the same, double jeopardy. If the DA determines there was a crime, the driver will be charged. If not, the driver will be cited by the police. In either case, civil penalties still apply, if possible.

I’m not a lawyer, but I think your explanation is nonsense. I’d like a real lawyer to explain it.

I found the following definition:

“A second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction or multiple punishments for same offense. The evil sought to be avoided by prohibiting double jeopardy is double trial and double conviction, not necessarily double punishment.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, “No person shall … be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This provision, known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, prohibits state and federal governments from prosecuting individuals for the same crime on more than one occasion, or imposing more than one punishment for a single offense. Each of the 50 states offers similar protection through its own constitution, statutes, and Common Law.”

As I understand it, additional charges or amended charges can be levied against an offender. It seems it’s just sloppiness on the part of the law enforcement personnel or prosecutors.

“… riding our tandem at 160th & Halsey when we were hit by a woman who was just sure that she could beat us across Barr Rd (she couldn’t).”

People seem to inaccurately judge bicycle speeds, and that’s *especially* true with tandems. Even other bicyclists seem to frequently get it wrong. I’m always more worried on the tandem than riding individually. I can take drastic evasive action with a short wheelbase and only my own weight to move; the options are much more limited when it might not even be possible to warn the stoker in time to react.

Nathan Jones Has anyone been in touch with Clackamas Bike Gallery in regards to a donation fund yet?Recommended 0

Like to see Bike Gallery institute a company policy that all company trucks must be driven at 10MPH below posted speed limits. Company management should brag about this and use it as a major advertising hook–i.e. “We’re Bike Gallery. Yes, we need motor vehicles but we try to be civilized about it.” That might put their advertising up at the awesome level of River City’s.

How about all Portland-area bike wholesalers and manufacturers who have company motor vehicles driving below posted speeds? Advertise as a group? King, Cyclone, others? Any comments? Here’s a free slogan “Yes, we have to drive sometimes but we try to be civilized about it.”

26th is too narrow. It would require major reconstruction here. There are plenty of places in Portland without bike infrastructure. Turn signal phases would be relatively inexpensive compared to roadway reconstruction for multiple blocks.

I’m disappointed in the language used in this article. This was not a collision between a bicycle and a truck. There were people operating them. Bike Portland should know better and use “person riding a bike” and “the person turned his truck”; not “the bike” and “the truck turned”.

One of the postings on the Oregonian website on Sunday morning had the following quote:

“When Weiss asked Portland police spokesman Sgt. Brian Schmautz for clarification, here’s what Schmautz said “..yielding the right of way, and determining whether a traffic violation has occurred, comes down to a matter of perception. Basically, the driver has to perceive he has to yield the right of way.”

I’ve looked for this on the Portland police website, the Oregonian, and those of KGW, KOIN, and KPTV. Does anyone know if this is accurate or where it came from?

If anyone can track it down, I’d like to get explanations from the mayor and the police chief about why their spokesman is offering up a new excuse for motorists based on “a matter of perception.”

J_R, maybe there’s an ORS that gives guidelines as to how accurate a driver’s perception must be before they’re allowed to drive, but the Oregon Driver Manual doesn’t mention perception. It states: “A green signal means go. Cautiously enter the intersection…Be aware of any vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians remaining in the intersection before you move ahead…Remember: If you are making a left or right turn, you must yield to oncoming traffic and pedestrians.” http://www.odot.state.or.us/forms/dmv/37.pdf (see pg 24-25 of the PDF or 32-33 of the online page).

Isn’t that what DMV driver’s license tests are for, to make sure drivers are able to properly perceive (see) bikes, people walking, signeage, etc?

Thanks for that reference. I was under the impression that the quote was from a statement made on May 10, 2014. Obviously that was not the case; I’m glad I didn’t start a campaign railing against PPB based on that old quote (even if it was unfounded at that time.)

“I’d like to get explanations from the mayor and the police chief about why their spokesman is offering up a new excuse for motorists based on ‘a matter of perception.'” Perhaps the Portland police are reading from the same playbook as the Eugene law enforcement who couldn’t figure out how to cite the man who ran a red light and then killed three children in a crosswalk (from today’s Monday Roundup – “In order to prosecute LaThorpe, authorities would have needed proof that he ‘should have been aware’ of a problem with his own driving at the time of the crash, Gardner said.”

Dragging perception, judgment, and all the other exonerating bits into this is classic Car-head. When someone in a car does something irrevocable like kill or maim someone not in a car, law enforcement bends over backwards to find some weasel-clause to get them off. But when someone on a bike does anything a cop notices or imagines to be problematic, even when it is legal and harms no one, they get cited.

unfortunately there is a difference between “citing” a driver and “prosecuting” a driver.

– Citing is a term used for traffic enforcement or issuing a Citation for a traffic infraction. (only police do this)

– Prosecuting means that the state would be filing criminal charges against the driver for committing a crime. (only a DA can do this)

Unfortunately the two do not go hand and hand, most traffic laws do not allow for criminal prosecution and vice versa. Or to be more clear it is extremely hard (and costly, politically and to tax payers) for the DA to seek criminal charges of someone operating a motor vehicle, literally voids most criminal law. A person driving a car can literally get a way with murder in 99% of instances.

This is what needs to change in our criminal legal system, DA’s should be bound to prosecute when someone operating a vehicle causes bodily harm or death. And the term “accident” should be legally defined as any collision that only causes damage to property and does not cause damage or harm to any person. We would only need to pass one law to change all of this, adding “traffic violence” to the criminal code and defining it as “any traffic collision that causes harm or death to a person” would open a huge door for DA’s to prosecute negligent drivers.

Talk about scared straight?! Drivers would drive with the “fear” of making a mistake like nobodies business! I wouldn’t be surprised if the complete opposite effect of everyone being cited for driving to slow, to carefully and with to much purpose would happen.

ORS 811.025 is a class B traffic violation, not a crime. I would imagine they maybe could have cited the driver for that, but a $260 ticket is little consolation or remedy. Civil compensation would likely have to stem from some sort of negligence. Criminal conviction would demand proof of reckless disregard or extreme indifference or something along those lines, and one can’t disregard or be indifferent to facts of which one is unaware.

All I was attempting to do was point out that “perceiving a need” to yield was not in the law; I don’t know how it crept into Law Enforcement’s guidelines for issuing citations (in reference to the quote of a quote from Sgt. Brian Schmautz, PPB: “…the driver has to perceive he has to yield the right of way.”). If this is really the way police are making determinations of whether or not a violation occurred, then, “I just didn’t see him, officer!” has truly become the catch-all, get out of jail free card.

I realize there are subtleties involved in whether or not a driver is cited immediately, or only after an investigation to find out whether there is a more serious charge to be brought.

I’m Alistair’s cycling coach and I’ve setup a GoFundMe campaign to help defray some of the costs that Alistair will face in the wake of his accident yesterday. In addition to more surgeries and physical therapy he faces the expense of prosthetic devices to regain his mobility that will exceed $50,000.

This fundraising campaign is setup so that all of the money is directed to Alistair. I am only involved to the extent that I set it up and will be working to get the word out to the community. Alistair is an incredible kid, please help if you can.

The city and state know all too well this is a major problem area. Whether they do anything soon is debatable. ODOT has a good chunk of money slated for unnamed changes in the next 5ish years though, and if they can come to terms with the city on the bikeway, that will also help. I bike across Powell 2x a day to get to 29th and Powell for work. I first tried using this signal to turn left onto the sidewalk but found it terrifying with all the red/yellow light runners on 26th. Now I go up around Cleveland and cross in the crosswalk. Among concerns I’ve seen: – there are NO GOOD OPTIONS to get across Powell – police are no help wrt enforcement; rather than ticket non-compliant motorists, a motorcycle cop once yelled at me to get off my bike at the crosswalk to “get more people to stop.” Maybe more people would stop if he ticketed them for failing to stop? – others have noted the lack of a green arrow for N/S bound traffic. This encourages red light runners that have waited to turn left – Others have noted the terrible situation and behavior around Cleveland High. Parents and students do the stupidest things ranging from stopping mid-block and mid-lane to drop off to dashing across Powell and/or 26th mid-block with no warning.

This is admittedly a rough spot with lots of things working against it. Unfortunately ODOT and PBOT seem to have just thrown their hands up in frustration and given up. How many more people will be maimed or killed before something changes? And finally, how was there no Failure to Yield ROW? With that decision, the city remains culpable for the next similar crash.

I was so sad for the cyclist when I heard about this accident on the radio this morning. I hope the driver of the truck is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I will be walking my bike in the crosswalks at this intersection from now on. It sounds so dangerous – I just don’t want to get hit.

I was the cyclist that was nearly hit one week ago, where the driver ran over the kid walking into Cleveland. The light was red on Powell for a second or two, I started riding northbound (first out of the bike box) and as I approached the first lane, someone honked. I looked up, saw a white ford explorer heading eastbound blow through the intersection at 25-30 mph. I turned my bars, he swerved slightly and I felt the wind from the car literally inches from me. He would have killed me at that speed. The kid, unfortunately, was just ahead of me in the walk and got kicked up over the front fender landing on his back. I held c spine until the ambulance showed up and it appeared it was okay. Whoever was out there honking, thank you.

And seriously, this is a dangerous intersection. That kid or I could have easily been dead. It was an older gentleman driver that possibly mistook the gas from the brake. He was accelerating as he passed me into the cross walk. The lady behind me on a bike, helped me with the kid and told me she gives it a two count before she enters the intersection typically. I no longer ride through this intersection.

I too must say something in support of neither cyclists nor motorists, but common sense.

I would have to say that nearly 80% of the cyclists (not just in pdx or (Manhattan–whatever), do not obey the rules of the road. That number exaggerates the more elite the cyclist i.e. Pinnarelo = speed)

It seems tighter lycra = arrogance. Some of the worst people I have ever ridden with have been racers.

Cyclists need to slow down and anticipate what the motorist is going to do. Motorists need to understand and accept cyclists just like pot, gay marriage and the fact that Blockbuster video no longer exists and we can all just live in harmony

We all just need to get along. An investigation into what really happened is underway and there are two victims here, folks: Alistaire AND the driver. I am sure he never wanted this to happen no matter what his previous driving record.

Wow, it is pretty bad when you see people advocate for no consequences for drivers whose inattention or illegal actions cause severe injuries to others, but it crosses into a whole new zone when someone tries to classify them as the victim.

Same as if a car hit the rear of a vehicle that turned in front of them when they had the right of way so closely that it was impossible for them to avoid a collision. Do you really not get that when someone illegally cuts someone off they are at fault?

Do you not get that the cyclist was going TOO FAST and hit a truck? One does not sever ones leg by going too slow on a bike. He was obviously going too fast that he couldnt stop, and lost his leg as a result.

“TOO FAST”. Are you sure you don’t mean “at a high rate of speed”? As far as I can tell, the speed limit here is 25 mph, do you think the bicyclists in this incident were going faster than that? Had another car clipped the bumper of the truck after being cut off, would you be certain that the driver was going “TOO FAST”? If you were driving a car straight through an intersection in a 25 mph zone, how fast would you be going? Let’s say you’re driving down the road, minding your own business—even going the speed limit—and a pedestrian jumps in front of you and you hit them. Were you going “TOO FAST”?

Had this cyclist been going EVEN FASTER, the truck would have hit the bicyclist—then who would have been going “TOO FAST”?

Technically, I suppose we could say that anyone who hits anything, regardless of reason, was going “TOO FAST”, since if they had been stopped, they couldn’t have hit it. Regardless of how fast anyone was going, it is still the responsibility of someone turning left without a dedicated signal to yield to any oncoming traffic—even if that traffic is speeding.

I would say that nearly (insert made-up high percentage anecdotal statistic here) of motor vehicle operators are scofflaws that break speed limits laws, don’t make appropriate use of turn signals, and talk on their phones while driving.

It seems higher value car = privilege. Some of the worst drivers I have ever seen own high value cars and SUVs.

Motorists need to slow down, pay attention to the road, and anticipate what other people are going to do in the public right of way. Everyone else should probably pay attention too.

Blah. There were two people involved in this crash, a guy who was driving a 3-ton pickup, and a guy who got maimed. Let’s not forget to pity the guy who really screwed up because I’m sure he’s really sorry.

Huh. Some of the worst people I’ve ridden with are actually cops, ironically (no lie). The strongest people I ride with are damned good racers because of all the starting and stopping we do for red lights and stop signs in the crowded areas we ride.

I’m entertained by your factual-sounding ‘statistics’ though. Have you actually come up with a method for measuring lycra tightness?

Hello? Did you READ what the WITNESS who WATCHED THE ACCIDENT said? You know, the one who saw the leg get severed?

The witness stated that he cyclist HIT THE REAR BUMPER OF THE TRUCK…the CYCLIST HIT THE TRUCK…..and one more time for good measure THE CYCLIST WENT BARRELING THROUGH THE INTERSECTION and CLIPPED THE REAR BUMPER OF THE TRUCK.

Soooo, who was at fault here REALLY? Seems pretty clear from the witness’ statement, no?

I suppose with your last question, and some points earlier raised, you’re implying that you consider that the person riding was at fault for the collision.

It’s possible you’ve correctly identified who is at fault, but not necessarily. Here’s some questions your comment had occur to me:

Did the person driving give sufficient advance notice of his decision to turn across a lane of traffic from the opposite direction? How fast was the person driving? Did the person driving, notice the person on the bike, approaching him, and believe the person on the bike was a sufficient distance away to allow for a safe turn?

By the way…your comments would likely be made just as clearly, and with less annoyance to people reading, if you’d not write words all in caps to stress a point.

After first hearing this story, I automatically assumed it WAS the cyclist’s fault because I know of the riding style of the said individual…in real life.

After hearing more about it throughout the day on the news and as friends were calling to ask if I’d heard about it, it sounded like the TRUCK WAS at fault, not the cyclist. Then I started leaning that way…it was the TRUCK’S fault.

It wasnt until I came here and read the witness account about how the cyclist barreled through the intersection and clipped the rear bumper, therefore losing his leg, that I then switched BACK to my original idea that it was the cyclist who was at fault.

I then went to Google Maps – Street View so that I could view the intersection for myself since I dont know that particular area of town very well. The intersection is not a large/wide one.

Who cares about how fast the truck was going? The cyclist hit the truck while still in the intersection…how fast could the truck have possibly been going if the cyclist plowed into the rear bumper while the truck was STILL GOING THROUGH the intersection (witness account)? 10 – 15 mph?

To me, I feel the cyclist was going far too fast through the intersection…fast enough to get his leg severed…because he hit a truck…because he was going too fast through the intersection.

The whole thing is just terrible and I feel for everyone involved…and yes, that includes the driver.

Isnt it a cyclist’s responsibility to ride at a SAFE and REASONABLE speed through an intersection..samd as it is for a vehicle?

What everyone involved in this collision was doing, leading up to the collision, I think is something that’s very important to understanding why the collision occurred. Other related factors too, of course.

Speed the pickup truck was traveling, straight and beginning the turn, is very important. Also important: whether the pickup had its turn indicator light on so that other people using the road could adjust the speed of their own vehicles to help the pickup turn safely.

Most people with some experience using the road, have seen a road user traveling down streets at rather high speed, and then abruptly with out signaling, or a last second signal actuation, cut across a lane, or multiple lanes of traffic. People driving, thinking that with a hair’s breadth from oncoming traffic, they can cut across lanes of traffic, signal or not, isn’t good enough. Doing so is ‘Careless Driving’, maybe even ‘Reckless Driving’, depending upon what other things may characterize the person driving, and their manner of driving.

Again, did you read the witness account that said it was THE CYCLIST who barreled through the intersection? I’m no genius, but to me, the term “barreling” through the intersection implies an UNSAFE SPEED, no?

Did the witness say the truck went barreling through the intersection? No, no he didnt…I saw no such mention of the witness stating that.

“It is very difficult for even a professional racer to maintain 25mph on a bike. …” Bjorn

It’s been so long since I’ve been out Powell, that I can’t remember for certain, but I’ve been wondering if 26th southbound is a slight downgrade. Even a bit of a downgrade can make a big difference from level or upgrade, in the rate of speed a brisk riding person on a bike can attain and maintain for awhile.

Nevertheless, even considering a 25 or say 30 mph travel speed by someone on a bike, unless somehow, everything a person driving in that situation did was perfect, such as signaling in advance of the turn, looking ahead sufficiently for oncoming traffic, maintaining appropriate speed… by law, the person driving most likely would be the person primarily responsible for the collision.

Even if in turning across oncoming traffic, another vehicle were to collide with the tail end of the vehicle turning, I think the person turning likely would be primarily at fault.

In terms of practical guidelines for safe riding, (and driving), at least for myself, defensive riding considerations are more important. Right of way doesn’t count for much if a person riding, loses their leg, or worse due to the fault of another road user failing to justifiably grant right of way.

I’m actually chuckling right now at the amount of credence you give to a single witness account and the degree of scientific accuracy you ascribe to the term “barreling”. It is a common bias to under- or overestimate speeds of other people when it suits your purposes. Unless this witness had a radar gun, “barreling” is a personal opinion.

As far as your insistence that it must be the bicyclist’s fault because “THE CYCLIST HIT THE TRUCK”, what about another recent case in which a box truck ran a red light directly across the path of a delivery cyclist, and the cyclist ran into the side of the truck as it mangled the bike’s front wheel. Was that bicyclist going “TOO FAST”, or did another vehicle appear in his path so suddenly as to not allow time to react or stop?

Why protest now? Why make this about traffic and street design? Because in the big picture it doesn’t matter precisely what went wrong here and from a legalistic and actuarial perspective what percent of the blame lies with each person involved. Two cyclists, fairly experience, riding in daylight, in the correct travel lane collided with a left turning which crossed their lane of travel. So 1 young man has his life dramatically changed as a result of doing something that was safe, doing it appropriately, and someone (either the cyclists or the motorists or both) made a slight misjudgment. There is the problem! One, one, one slight misjudgment by either a motorists or a vulnerable road user, and someone is gravely injured or dead, and it is never the motorist.

Powell Blvd. is one of several corridors in the city that cyclists and pedestrians have to avoid as much as possible and those who much cross the corridor are left with no good choices, where even the best choice leaves with one slight misjudgment between a nice day, and death or dismemberment. The accident rates for pedestrians and cyclists would be far higher except that Powell is effectively a no mans zone for most Vulnerable Road Users – If you have to cross Powell to get there, you aren’t going to go by foot.

Here is what the protest is about: 1) There have been 73 injuries at that intersection alone between 2004 and 2013. 60 motorists, 8 cyclists and 5 pedestrians. This intersection is dangerous to all users.

2) Powell is identified by the City and the State as a “High Crash Corridor” Between 22nd and 33rd – roughly 1 mile – there were 233 injury accidents on Powell between 2004 and 2013. 66% of all injury accidents in Portland happen on the 10 “high Crash Corridor” roads.

3) There are no truly safe places to cross Powell Blvd. Don’t believe, go try anytime during the day and the “more safe” crossings are long distances apart. Motorists blow through marked cross walks and hawk signals. Motorists run red lights, and turning vehicles don’t pay attention to vulnerable road users.

4) Everything that is true about Powell Blvd and this intersection is equally true about many other corridors and intersections, especially the ones owned by the state – Sandy, Barbur and 82nd, and Division.

5) Very little to nothing is happening, is in the wings, being planned to address these issues. Time frames are years to decades out and no guarantee that plans will include the best designs for cyclists and pedestrians.

Even more, the protest is about sending notice to the City, the State, and to the motoring public that it is past time for real safety considerations for pedestrians and cyclists in the areas that need them most: The East side, Powell, Sandy, 82nd, 122nd, Barbur, Barbur and Barbur.

Actually after the protest ODOT is now talking about a left turn arrow on 26th which they previously said would take too much time and wasn’t on the table. A left arrow would reduce the likelyhood of this kind of accident assuming that the driver only failed to yield and didn’t run a red light.

Well, there was the Boston Tea Party that started us on the path to American independence, the 1963 March on Washington that was influential in securing the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the “People Power” demonstrations that ousted Ferdinand Marcos from power in the Philippines, There was that one time in Tiananmen Square in China where protests brought enough pressure on the Chinese government to start China down the road to greater political and economic freedom. I’m pretty sure protests had a role to play in ending Apartheid in South Africa, ending the long-running presidency of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt…what do you mean by “solved”?

one of two things happened, either both of them had a green light in which case the driver turned in front of the cyclist and was 100% at fault or both of them had a red light and they both ran the red and the driver failed to yield the right of way. Somehow that seems a lot less plausible, but either way the driver is clearly at fault here.

You clearly have it out for the driver in this case. The cyclist was going too fast. Period. He’s a racer, for God’s sake. You think racers ride slow? No! They don’t. Like ever. If you’re a racer and you’rre gonna suit up and ride amongst vehicles, you best watch your ass!

It is very difficult to actually go faster than 25 mph on a bike, I doubt he was exceeding the speed limit. I am sure that the driver either didn’t see them or misjudged their speed, but the cyclist was almost certainly not speeding.

Are you saying you can prove that the bicyclist was exceeding the speed limit for cars on this particular flat stretch of road? Or is there actually some lower limit that bicyclists are supposed to adhere to that we don’t happen to know about… because “too fast” sounds like an opinion to me.

Yes, this is horrible…truly. Sucks the guy didn’t have insurance. I mean REALLY. It sucks bad. I feel terrible for Alistaire.

However, this is the risk we ALL take when out and about on the road: as a cyclist, skateboarder, a pedestrian, or a driver of a vehicle – there are people out there who do not have insurance on their vehicles.

I “barrel” through intersections all the time, but where I ride there are few places where a vehicle can turn left across my path while I have a green light. In those places I tend to take the lane when not protected by being next to cars that are also “barreling” through the intersection with me.

Again, unless these cyclists were exceeding the speed limit, “too fast” is your opinion and does not change the fact that vehicles (including bicycles) proceeding straight through an intersection have the right-of-way over vehicles turning left.

And just as clearly, you seem to have it out for the bicyclist who lost his leg. Sounds like you’ve ridden with Alistair before, being so familiar with his riding style—what was he like to ride with? Were you guys on the same racing team?

I don’t “have it out” for the cyclist. On the contrary – this is a horrible situation and I feel terrible for ALL involved. This includes the driver. Sorry to all you other opinionated cyclists who feel I am WRONG to feel sorry for all involved.

Do you have some idea in mind about how fast in mph speed, the person on the bike was traveling? Say what you think the mph speed was.

Sometimes too, ‘too fast’ for a given traffic situation, is slower than the posted, or legal speed for a given street or road. Do you have an idea about this for the Powell and 26th intersection?

With other people here responding to your thoughts about the person riding too fast, I’ll offer that for example, on level ground, cruising 20 mph isn’t too difficult, but it’s some effort. 25 is brisk. 30 would be some very strong pedaling. Downhill of course, can enable greater speeds. I really would have to be skeptical though, that the person on the bike involved in this collision, was traveling over 25 mph, let alone 30.

Worst case in terms of hypothetical fault, for the person riding: wasn’t looking ahead at all, upon approaching and entering the intersection. Also something I’d have to be very skeptical about, knowing the few details I do about the person riding and involved this collision; sounds like quite an experienced rider, and not just a racer.

Without breaking traffic laws, road users sometimes make errors in judgment that can put themselves or others in danger. The potential for this to happen, and that it actually does too often, should emphasize to people, the importance of defensive road use, whether walking, riding, or driving.

Sound like you are threatening cyclists, or at least those who you think appear to be “racers”… “you better watch out!” Are you saying you feel the need to deliberately not give space and drive safely around “racer” cyclists?

The only reason I can figure why someone would spend so much energy defending someone who had been convicted of careless driving multiple times and was driving uninsured when they caused a horrific crash resulting in life altering injuries would be that the person was either related to or close friends with the perpetrator…

Don’t know where you got the ire. It’s just that there could have been mistakes on both sides. And,just for the record, I feel terrible for Mr.Cook and will be giving some money to his kickstarter. But, from a legal standpoint, there could be contributory negligence. It would be tacky to bring up the possibility of excess speed and running a yellow light (everyone makes mistakes) but we are putting the truck owner on trial on this blog. So the full truth needs to come out.